Oral arguments are scheduled for Monday in a federal case over the proposed safe drug consumption facility in Philadelphia. Counsel for the potential facility sent a note to the judge on Thursday, criticizing the Department of Justice for its apparent contradictory positions.
The letter states that in the Philadelphia case, DOJ has argued the harm reduction goals of Safehouse, a nonprofit organization attempting to open a facility where people could use illicit substances under medical supervision, , are “sociopolitical rather than religious .
DOJ filed a statement stating that the “distribution” of free meals for those in need was a religious exercise that would be violated by local zoning laws.
Ilana Eisenstein, a DLA Piper lawyer, wrote to Judge Gerald McHugh of Pennsylvania’s Eastern District and said that the government cannot have it both.
Eisenstein wrote that the arguments of DOJ in the Oregon case “demonstrate Safehouse’s ability to adequately plead a substantial burden upon its religious practice.”
The letter argues that, if government believes that giving free meals to those in need is protected by religious reasons, then it cannot deny that harm-reduction services deserve the same protection.
The letter states that “DOJ’s arguments in that case cannot be reconciled with its positions here, and confirms that this Court should reject the DOJ’s pending dismissal motion.”
Safehouse argues that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other federal laws protecting worship protect its harm reduction activities because its mission is aligned with sincerely held beliefs.
The federal government, however, has asked that the court dismiss Safehouse’s suit on the grounds that it is not a religious matter. In September, DOJ attorneys argued that Safehouse was not a religion and therefore could not plausibly claim RFRA or Free Exercise on behalf of the company itself.
DOJ maintains, too, that the non-profit’s “professed belief” in facilitating drug use isn’t a’religious one’ but rather a social-political conviction informed by harm reduction principle.
Safehouse itself is not religious, but a group of 35 Christian and Jewish faith leaders, from 19 states, submitted in August an amicusbrief, in which they supported Safehouse’s nonprofit in its establishment of an overdose prevention website. The group said that, while the organization is secular, its board members are motivated by their faith to prevent drug overdose deaths.
Before DOJ responded to the lawsuit, local legislators, including Democrats who support marijuana legalization, requested that the federal court block Safehouse’s opening, and asked permission to file an amicus brief in the case. A coalition of 20 Pennsylvania communities groups also requested the court to allow them to intervene. However, in recognition that the government was defending the current statute and opposed overdose prevention centers, the court denied their request.
The Justice Department declined to submit a brief in order to express its position regarding harm reduction, and asked for to have more time to respond to the “complex case. The department stated last year that it was evaluating potential “guardrails” for safe consumption sites.
Safehouse and the department decided to settle the dispute in January by transferring the case to a mediation with a magistrate. The discussions were described as “productive”, leaving some advocates hoping that DOJ would drop the dispute.
Under the Trump administration, the Justice Department initially blocked Safehouse’s opening of the overdose prevention facility. The Justice Department initially blocked Safehouse from opening the overdose prevention center under the Trump administration.
The Supreme Court has rejected a request to hear a case in October 2021 on the legality Safehouse facilities.
In November 2021, New York City opened its first locally sanctioned harm-reduction centers in the U.S., and officials reported that it had saved lives.
The American Medical Association published a study last year that found the newly opened New York City facility had reduced the risk of overdose and discouraged people from using drugs in the public. It also provided other ancillary services to those who use illicit substances.
A separate study published by the American Medical Association last month found that New York City’s first drug overdose-prevention centers (OPCs), , have not increased crime despite an important decrease in arrests.
A federal prosecutor with jurisdiction in Manhattan has recently told The New York Times in statement that these sites are illegal, and that he’s “prepared to use all options, including enforcement,” if the situation doesn’t change soon.
Researchers in Congress have pointed out that the position of the federal government regarding such facilities is “uncertain”. They noted last November that legislators could resolve the issue temporarily by passing an amendment similar to the one which has allowed the medical marijuana laws be implemented without Justice Department intervention.
Nora Volkow, Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, has implicitly endorsed the idea to authorize safe consumption sites . She argues that evidence has shown that these facilities are effective in preventing overdose deaths.
Volkow refused to specify what she thinks should be done with the lawsuit. However, she did say that research on safe consumption sites “has shown that they have saved a significant (percentage) of patients from overdosing.”
Rahul Gupta is the White House Drug Czar. He has stated that the Biden administration is reviewing proposals for harm reduction in drug policy. This includes the authorization of sites with supervised consumption. Rahul even went as far as suggesting possible decriminalization.
In December 2021, the National Institutes of Health issued two requests for applications to examine how harm reduction policies and safe consumption sites could be used to address the drug epidemic.
Gupta is the director of White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. He has stated that it is important to explore “any option” in order to reduce the number of overdose deaths. This may include allowing the use of illegal substances at safe consumption sites if there are sufficient evidence to support their effectiveness.
New York Supreme Court Lifts Blockade On Marijuana Licensing, Allowing Regulators to Process Hundreds of New Retailers
The post Before Oral Arguments, Lawyers from Safe Drug Consumption Sites Criticize DOJ’s “Irreconcilable” Legal Positions first appeared on Marijuana moment.
